Yes, under certain senerios, I understand where it could possibly be beneficial to the team's negotiation position to expire Nylander's current contract one year earlier, but there is imo too many ifs and buts (unknowns) involved to give up the flexibility of having a good player under one more ELC year. The odds are that burning an ELC year is almost always beneficial to the player (if he is a good player) and therefore not so beneficial to the team. By doing what the Leafs did, they are "rewarding" Nylander. Assuming the management is competent (I do), then it must be for reasons like fulfilling a gentlemen's agreement....eg. in return for Nylander agreeing to develop in the AHL rather than staying in Sweden. Like others have said, if burning an ELC year was a good strategic move, why is it not proactively done elsewhere...eg why not burn off a year for Kapanen too?